Wall Street/The City strikes again. Their free out of thin air money gets paid off first.
Screw the employees who actually worked for their wages that aren't being paid.
The 'investors' take the profits, necessitating the need to be a perpetual debt slave.
This is the setup. However with this company in particular, they didn't get it 'going'. But that's where they were heading had this launch worked.
Either way, employees should always be paid first.
But we live in idiot world, where Wall Street/The City's idiocy misrules supreme.
You don't pay off your debt, you can't increase your debt capacity, which is all you were really doing by purchasing Amalur. Enabling a new firm to increase the amount of debt capacity they can carry.
This is the Wall Street model. With a little help from the gov't as well. Completely backwards, and gives you all the crap you hate in gaming. Non customer focus. DRM. DLC. On disc you bought DLC. Always on. Super duper 100 dollar packs. Smaller campaigns. Fewer multiplayer maps. BIGGER advertising campaigns. More hype, less substance. Online passes. Pulling online functionality in a few months. I'm sure plenty of others.
Treating you like a slave, because they are a slave...to debt...perpetually, and never getting out NO MATTER HOW MANY you games you buy.
Poor guys at Amalur don't get paid, because the debt 'needs' to be paid. One day we're going to wake up and the gaming industry has gone poof in the night, because all their debt capacity will have been pulled. The gaming industry sold their soul to the devil, and the time for collection is coming. Not sure the exact day, but it's coming. For these poor saps, looks to be already almost here.
3 maps for 800 points isn't overpriced? Of course it is.
Just because they've and others have gotten away with it, doesn't mean it isn't a screwjob.
Map packs should EACH have at least double that, or more like 8-12 maps. So you are saying what amounts to ONE map pack, 9 maps, is perfectly fine being THREE. That's CLEARLY overpriced. Now I can see it being 1200 points for such a map pack, but 3x800 is WAY too much.
As an example look at GRAW 2. When all was said and done it had 42 maps. More if you count Co-op maps. The map packs didn't have 3 maps in them, more like 8, and not all of them cost something. THIS is the way to charge for content.
Then again you could also go another route like Starhawk, where ALL the future maps will be FREE.
So charging up the wazoo for 3 MAPS at a time, is a screwjob. Just because you get a 'deal' by throwing all this money at them in the beginning, which of course you give up any recourse if the game sucks big time. Hey it happens. Then you're not only out 60 bucks, but 100.
Horrible review. 90 percent of the game (if not more) IS the competitive multiplayer. The reviewer took this game as if it was a single player first, multiplayer second game, which is a methodology error.
This game is first and foremost the competitive multiplayer. So to say someone is going to have troubles with what the single player 'taught' them as how they approach multiplayer is asinine. People are buying it for multiplayer first, and THEN, play the single player. It's the successor of Warhawk, thus the established fan base is buying it FOR the multiplayer, so to weight the game so heavily based on the single player is flat out poor methodology.
Also how can you discount a game where people will playing online for years based on the first few matches and not knowing how the multiplayer works? By this metric ANY non-CoD multiplayer will be 'discounted' because people don't know how it all works. This again is an error. It's a short learning curve, and for a game in which you'll play for years, it's not like this 'feeling' is going to encompass more than 1 percent of your total multiplayer time when all is said and done, and again ONLY if you play a multiplayer geared game's single player campaign first. Which will be the vast minority.
You don't need headsets (obviously coordination is better if used). I played the beta and quite easily coordinated what was going on with other people because it really is self explanatory. Here's a hint, build in an area that a single shield can cover. So compact things and place your piece of the puzzle inside it.
Also what is with the focus only on the warhawks themselves? This is only one aspect of the game. The vulture and the truck are both formidable, the sniper rifle can snipe from 2x the length of the average CoD map end to end, if not more.
Overall this review by gamespot is of poor quality and gives the wrong impression, because the focus of the 'game experience' of the review is nothing like the real world use of the game will play out. You don't judge the multiplayer game based on the single player, and treat the review as if the only experience will be that of the first ten matches you play when it is all so new and discount it because of this newness.
It's multiplayer 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but this review seems to take the multiplayer as a secondary experience and laments its novel aspects as not being CoD style streamline with hand holding along the way. Horrible review. When you consider your cons aren't even REAL cons, then really the cons should be blank. If there are no legitimate cons, whats up with the 7.5 score?
They can also outlast everybody with their free debt funding, so there again is an unfair advantage that helps sets the market and standards, that only a few can achieve.
Wall Street picks winners and losers. The winners are EA/Ubi/Activision, the rest, well you get the idea.
The whole gaming industry has gotten off track due to this free debt funding monopoly, which is only a microcosm of the entirety of monetary economics. (no monetarism doesn't denote money, it's a specific ideology, thus don't think I'm saying free games)
Yep and there was quite a bit more lost due to the idiotic comment system.
Wouldn't it of been better to have one nice post instead of all these ones that are still inferior to one bigger post? Well that's the unintended consequences of a piss poor commenting system, whose limits were decided upon wrongly.
Here is the inferior 2nd part of the post not allowed by the bloatware facebook/twitter waste of space that didn't allow me to copy and paste, causing me to lose the rest of it, thus had to be remade, in an inferior manner. Fix this crap.
So you have a case of family farm vs. big corporate agro farm. They cannot compete.
Sure indie devs can make nice games, but let's face it, they are games that are in genres mostly 10 years or older, which are cheaper to make, and when glitzed up, doesn't cost nearly as much.
Now you have people like EA trying to gobble up that innovation with their free debt funding (remember the 1st post) because they have deep pockets, and can assimilate the slow trickle of innovation that can in any way threaten their Wall street corporate debt.
Glass-Steagall
American Credit System (note: not monetary system Keynesian or Austrian)
America was not founded as an Austrian monetarism, nor the Keynesian retarded version of monetarism, it wasn't monetary system AT ALL. It was a CREDIT SYSTEM.
Otherwise you will continue to get such misallocations which manifest itself into society everywhere, including the gaming industry.
I had this 2nd part so much better, but again, the idiot constraints of this site prevented a much better overall, clearer, post. How about a infinite character limit, so I don't even have to copy and paste into 2-3-4 or more posts, and wait a minute, risking losing everything due to more rules that only hinder discussion and solutions.
So as bad as EA is, don't forget the broad spectrum of idiocy extends far beyond just EA.
BTW get rid of this idiot comment limited by characters and stupid twitter facebook crap.
It just lost the 2nd half of the post that rounded it all out. I'll try to remake it, but so many times crap gets lost because of this bloatware and copy and paste crap.
If you want answers, then ALLOW answers to be posted. Your comment setup, doesn't allow it.
It's all economics. Free debt isn't free. What you are watching are the consequences. Listen up or continue to not understand the obvious.
You see some companies can get debt funding like it's water, others can't. Anyone guess which ones these are? Hint: the ones that sell their soul to Wall Street and other economic 'hub' centers.
They push the envelopes and create a standard in some ways others can't match...but they become the same game over and over again.
The ones that want to take things in new directions, can't, because they can't be AAA like the others can (think all the ancillary things like explosions in action films), can't advertise on every channel for months, and thus the average person working like a slave doesn't have the time to spend to figure the difference.) They go by 'perception', like idiots, like how they've been ill-trained as sensory perception idiots, and like lemmings follow the path to their own detriment.
While the people here can obviously tell at least somewhat, most people don't care or don't have time to care and gain the knowledge necessary to judge these matters.
So in short, monetarism, just like everything else (monetarism is an ideology BTW) is crushing the game industry. Big, fat, lazy corporations with free debt money rule the scene at the expense of smaller devs who simply cannot compete with the standard set. The free debt money devs purposefully use this money PURPOSEFULLY to bloat their staffs and games with nice little side candy that does not really add to a game, but catches the eye of time constrained and idiot consumers who see on the surface that these games appear to be better, and thus those games are bought. After all it's their competitive advantage. A very unfair one, and one that does nothing but lead to misallocation. Again they use the free debt funding they sold their souls to wall street via the screwed up rules of monetarism to set the standard bar artificially high to differentiate their games and make themselves virtually untouchable against competitors. It doesn't have to be perfect, because if anything falls through the cracks, a little more free debt funding is created out of thin air to gobble up the company or copy the idea. In other words whatever threatens them can be neutered because they assimilate this into the fold because it is possible to do this since the pace of innovation that threatens them is but a trickle.
Why are RFA moaning? They made a sequel to a game and left the best parts out. Hint: The best part of Red Faction Guerilla was? The multiplayer. What doesn't Red Faction Armegeddon have? The multiplayer. (the real competitive kind...aka multiplayer...the other is called...co-op). So the reason for RFA not working is because of used game sales? No. Most people should realize that most problems start between the ears. For RFA, the group think that allowed the best portion of the game to be brainstormed out of the sequel is the reason the game didn't sell many. People need to call out the idiots who make crap games...who then use the...it's the people who buy used who are the problem. No it's the idiot devs stupid decisions that do it. That's a fact. Yeah and the reason the world economy is falling apart is because people are reusing mouthwash, carpooling, and only using the ipad2 instead of preordering the new one....not the big banksters and their completely fraudulent practices and extortion of gov't (and people) worldwide being the M.O. of the imperial monetary system.
Sorry, ultrabooks won't take out PC gaming. No one hates on gaming on the go...but everyone would rather play on a 30-70 inch HDTV @120hz or higher rather than a small screen. People are also forgetting that 4k and 16k are on their way, meaning the ability for ultrabooks to process 1080 effectively will be supplanted by the need for desktops to be able to do 4k and eventually 16k. (and after that beyond...of course there will also be tabletop upwards displaying holographic towards the end of the decade) Ultrabooks always have the constraints of power, heat, and size. Eventually the power, heat, and size, capabilities improve, but always AFTER the desktop has conquered them. No one wants their main computing display to be 13-17 or so inches unless they hate themselves...On the go..sure. At home? Hell no. With the increasing teach requirements that are coming, the ultrabook will not replace the desktop anytime soon. Last I checked, PC cases are getting BIGGER. To hold SLI, multiple processors, and from what I'VE SEEN on the drawing boards, even the current behemoths are small compared to what's coming. It just won't be possible to miniaturize this tech while ALSO achieving this tech. The desktop has nothing to worry about anytime soon. Never say never....but almost.
Undoubtedly they used some asinine incorrect statistical model to figure out that whatever they lost by screwing over their customers was less than the (small) cost of maintaining these games. Yep, just like so many decisions, now based on an incorrect statistical model that has never in the history of statistical model, told anybody anything accurately. Statistical models are ALWAYS wrong. NEVER BEEN RIGHT. NEVER WILL BE RIGHT. These idiotic nothings make decisions far more often than you think, AND worse, the idiots that make them the largest reasoning, make lots of money letting a nothing make a decision for them. Yeah, I don't understand where EA's problem is, or why there is a disconnect with the average person. /sarcasm It's not the first time they've cancelled games after a year or three. But under two months in this case for one of the games is downright ludicrous. Now one can legitimately say that there is a chance if you buy an EA game that they will take away any online support (gaming, dlc, whatever) within two months of launch date. Don't you love the pitfalls of monetarism operating within the Greatest Depression ever? (we're still in the proto stage people...not even fit to describe it as the beginning)
jmc88888's comments